Gaming law experts have busted perceptions that the “command-and-control” model currently in effect in certain gaming markets, such as in Las Vegas, Nevada, is the best approach to gaming regulation. According to experts, no regulatory model is inherently superior, and other jurisdictions adopting a different approach can still achieve the same policy goals.
No Gold Standard in Gaming Regulation
Anthony Cabot from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) Boyd School of Law, Pedro Cortés of the Macau-based gaming law firm Rato, Ling, Lei & Cortes, and gaming lawyer António Lobo Vilela looked into the two main gaming regulatory systems: command-and-control (such as the model implemented in Nevada), and concession (such as the one in effect in Macau).
In an article in the latest edition of the UNLV Gaming Law Journal, the three gaming law experts weighed in on whether there is a gold standard on how gaming is regulated. Each of them agrees that neither model is inherently superior as they both have their own advantages and disadvantages and have encountered successes and failures in their implementation.
Four Primary Principles in Gaming Regulation
The command-and-control system is widely considered the best model, but it is a misplaced idea, and clinging to it is “counterproductive”. Regardless of the model being used, good gaming regulation is gauged by its ability to meet four primary objectives: effectiveness, efficiency, equity, and political acceptability, the authors concluded.
